Reviewing the United Nations

When the delegates to the San Francisco Conference of 1945 finished writing the Charter of the United Nations, they knew that it was far from perfect. Big Power unanimity was already deteriorating, and the Cold War itself was not far off. Now, ten years later, as the question of Charter review comes before the General Assembly, it is clear that the U.N. has done much quiet growing within its imperfect framework.

The tremendous growth of the United Nations demands that the member nations come together soon to take a long look at the 1945 Charter. The entrance of the General Assembly into the middle of the Moroccan dispute, for example, has raised a basic question about the extent of the U.N.'s power in colonial problems. In other areas, too, such as disarmament and the peaceful uses of the atom, the U.N. is just not sure how far it should go. In short, the world organization has reached a crossroads, and only a review of the Charter can indicate the proper direction.

Much of the credit for growth in the power of the U.N. belongs to the United States. Quick action in Korea, strong support of U.N. technical agencies, and the use of the U.N. as a forum for world public opinion have all helped to bring the world body to its present strength--and its dilema. Yet the basic problem--review of the Charter itself--seems to have frightened the State Department almost into inaction. The U.S. favors reviewing the Charter--but not now, not yet. Careful planning and study should precede any review, Washington says.

No one, of course, could oppose careful preparation. But the current U.S. proposal, which will be presented to the General Assembly this week, emphasizes planning to an extreme degree. A working committee would investigate Charter review until 1957, and the actual conference would probably not come together before 1958.

Perhaps the basic reason behind Washington's three year delay is the fear of souring the smiles emanating from the Soviet Union. An attempt in a review conference to remove the veto power, for instance, could only antagonize the Soviets. Three years is a long time to wait, however, for a clarification of world politics. If the Soviet sun keeps shining for another year, a review conference should surely not upset any real change in Soviet attitude. And if the sunshine is only an illusion anyway, a review conference would only reveal already existing differences between East and West.

Basically, reviewing a piece of paper is not going to change world power politics. The Charter's text has meaning only within a context--the context of world conditions. By trying to postpone Charter review for three years, instead of one, the U.S. is merely putting off a problem that may well become more acute as each year passes.